Four months after President Barack Obama enacted the Affordable Care And Patient Protection Act, House Democrats have revived a top liberal priority that was eliminated from the sweeping health care law in the latter stages of a grueling year-long debate: the public option.

Armed with a new line of attack aimed at soothing deficit fears, Democratic Reps. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Pete Stark (Calif.) last Thursday unveiled a bill that would offer consumers the choice of a “robust” government-run insurance plan alongside the private plans in the law’s exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill, which has gained 128 co-sponsors, will reduce the federal deficit by $68 billion between 2014 and 2020.

“As the deficit continues to grow, so does the need for a program that can save billions of dollars and improve health care while doing it,” Woolsey, the co-chair of the progressive caucus, told The Washington Independent. “We are introducing the public option now so it will be available as a ready-made offset or deficit reducer in this or the next Congress.”

Schakowsky argues that the lower overhead costs of government plans such as Medicare would allow the public option to create a better deal for consumers. “We could offer that kind of plan at a lower cost, and it would compete with private insurance companies, who would have to be more efficient and lower their costs,” she told TWI. “It would follow the same rules as private insurers.”

The measure is unlikely to reach the floor this year, and could face even steeper odds next Congress. If nothing else, it appears part of a concerted effort by Democrats to galvanize disenchanted progressives and attack Republicans ahead of the tough November midterm elections.

“You’re the deficit hawks,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), referring primarily to Republicans, “and we’re giving you a tool to be able to deal with the deficit.” Grijalva labeled deficit-minded lawmakers who refuse to consider the public option “hypocrites,” alleging that “the excuse that it was going to be too expensive is phony.”

For Democrats in election mode, catering to liberal wishes could help bridge the wide enthusiasm gap among voters — a key predictor of midterm victories, where the main objective is to turn out the party base. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last month found that 72 percent of Republicans were “certain” they would vote in November, compared to only 49 percent of Democrats.

“I do think this turnout issue is really going to be the crucial indicator, and the election hangs in the balance on how many of those less-committed Democrats actually turn out again,” said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

“That is a very real issue that we’re focused on,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, admitted to Reuters. Apart from the public option bill, the White House on Monday strongly hinted it will choose liberal favorite Elizabeth Warren to lead the consumer protection agency. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats forced a cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act, also a progressive priority, despite widespread expectations that it wouldn’t pass.

Republicans, who have depicted the public plan as a slippery slope to a national single payer system, derided the attempt to revive it and dismissed the CBO report. “House Democrats still don’t get it,” National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Paul Lindsay told TWI. “As if it wasn’t enough to vote for their party’s overreaching health care takeover that was soundly rejected by Americans, they now have the audacity to propose a government option which would put health care in the hands of bureaucrats and further bankrupt our nation.”

The CBO estimates that the public plan’s premiums would be, on average, 5 to 7 percent lower than the private plans in the exchanges. Providers would be paid Medicare rates plus 5 percent, a figure that would rise alongside physicians’ costs.

“Although skepticism about big government is growing, the CBO estimate gives [Democrats] an important selling point at a time of rising concern about deficits,” said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

Popular among the populace but highly controversial in Congress, the public plan has the political disadvantage of facing fierce opposition from insurance companies, which fear competition from the government. And progressives shouldn’t hold their breath for a vote. “It’s unlikely it’ll be taken up this session,” a House Democratic aide conceded, saying only that it’s “quite possible” next Congress. But is it?

“For the progressives, it’s now or never,” Pitney argues. “They know that Republicans will make big gains in 2010, probably winning the House and maybe even the Senate. The numbers favor further GOP Senate gains in 2012.”

Despite the historic accomplishment, liberals cannot help but look back on the vexing health care debate with wistfulness, if not bitterness. Even though the bill covers 30 million Americans, liberals felt short-changed by its lack of a public insurance program. While the House passed a version of a public option in its November legislation, it was removed from the Senate version due to a lack of votes, and subsequently pronounced dead. (For a few liberal activists, this was the final straw that made the legislation no longer worth passing.) One day later, a CBS poll found that six in ten Americans favored the opportunity to choose between private insurance plans and a government plan. Surveys have consistently found that a large majority of the American public support the idea.

At the time, President Obama, soothing concerns of House progressives unsure whether to back a bill without it, reportedly assured them in private that it was merely a first step and he’d be willing to return to the public option later.

But major domestic initiatives are more likely to occur early in presidential terms, Pitney noted, arguing that the measure’s chances of success during this Congress are slim – but not nil. “It’s a Hail Mary pass, to be sure,” Pitney said. “But Hail Mary passes sometimes work. And Speaker Pelosi likes the Hail Mary. And if they fail to make the effort now, they will regret it in the future. Better a Hail Mary in 2010 than an Act of Contrition in 2011.”

Anybody who thinks that a public option would "save billions of dollars and improve health care while doing it" is an idiot. But, we are talking about libtards here, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

Furthermore, I truly hope that the Democrats keep trying to impose their liberal agenda to appeal to progressive voters. The only thing that accomplishes is to push Independents further to the right.

Yes, Medicare is quickly running out of money and Obamacare is causing drastic cuts, but evidently there's enough cash to hire celebrity spokesman Andy Griffith and produce a new television ad aimed at bamboozling seniors into thinking "good things are coming."

Medicare claims the national ad is not political and is meant to educate seniors about new benefits available next year (source) but as with all things Obama, it is filled with nothing but vague promises and the unmistakable odor of a never-ending political campaign.

No official word on how much the ad cost to produce including how much Mr. Griffith is being paid for what amounts to a celebrity endorsement of the unpopular grovernment program. But however much was spent, it should have come from the coffers of the Democratic Party, not the American taxpayers.

Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, the 22-year old star of the impressively vulgar MTV reality TV show, Jersey Shore has a beef with President Obama that -- who knows? -- could lead to the repeal of ObamaCare.

An inveterate tanner, Snooki expressed her outrage in the show's season-two opener this past Thursday. Said the miffed Snooki while being spray-painted orange, "I don't go tanning tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning. And I feel like he did that intentionally for us."

By "us," Snooki, who was born in Chile and raised by Italian-Americans, meant people of non-color like she and her Italian-American cast mates. "Obama doesn't have that problem, obviously," she added.

Snooki may have hit upon something. The provision in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation that mandates a 10 percent tax on UV-ray sessions has a dramatically "disparate impact" on people of little or no color, generically known as "white people." Indeed, not since the Jim Crow South imposed poll taxes on blacks has a race been so precisely targeted with a specific tax.

When asked about Snooki on The View earlier that day, Obama answered, "I don't know who that is." Two months prior at the White House Correspondents dinner, however, Obama had joked that "Snooki" would be one of a few "excluded from the indoor tanning tax."

Class action lawsuits have been ginned up over far less. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Watch for Snooki v. Sebelius to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Thomas Lifson adds: my take on the President's denial of knowing who Snooki is after having mentioned her in a recent speech, was that this shows he truly simply reads aloud whatever the Teleprompter says, and (obviously) pays little attention to the texts, beyond delivering a performance.

WASHINGTON — Virginia's lawsuit challenging the Obama administration's health care reform law cleared its first legal hurdle Monday as a federal judge ruled the law raises a host of complex constitutional issues.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson's decision stemmed from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's claims that Congress exceeded its authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause by requiring citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Hudson's ruling denied the Justice Department's attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed.

"The mere existence of the lawfully-enacted statute is sufficient to trigger the duty of the Attorney General of Virginia to defend the law and the associated sovereign power to enact it," Hudson wrote. "Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America."

Cuccinelli announced in March that he would challenge the national law. More than a dozen other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia's lawsuit is the first to go before a judge.

Hudson said Virginia's case raises several complex constitutional issues — mainly whether Congress has the right to regulate and tax a person's decision not to participate in interstate commerce.

The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation this year exempting state residents from the federal coverage mandate.

Hey Pelosi, the people of Missouri have found out what's in the bill and they don't like it. I wonder how Obama's gonna spin this one:

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Missouri Voters Oppose Mandatory Health Insurance. By PETER LANDERS

Voters in Missouri overwhelmingly opposed requiring people to buy health insurance, in a largely symbolic slap at the Obama administration's health overhaul.

The referendum was the first chance for voters to express a view on the overhaul, although turnout in the state was low and Republican voters significantly outnumbered Democrats.

With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C, establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage. Twenty-nine percent voted against the proposition.

The state law runs counter to the federal health law President Barack Obama signed in March, which calls on most Americans to carry coverage or pay a fine.

Some state attorneys general have challenged the insurance mandate as unconstitutional. Defenders of the law say the mandate falls within Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce and levy taxes.

The Missouri vote is likely to have little immediate practical effect because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014. If federal courts uphold the federal law as constitutional, it would take precedence over any state law that contradicts it.

Supporters of the state law said Congress was overreaching by requiring people to buy coverage, and they called the proposition a chance to stand up for states' rights.

Opponents included the Missouri Hospital Association, which said that if the mandate isn't enforced some who can afford insurance will get a free ride and pass the costs on to those who are insured. The association spent about $400,000 on direct mail in connection with Proposition C, according to its filings.

A June Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 44% think Mr. Obama's health-care plan is a bad idea, while 40% called it a good idea.

71% to 29% is a landslide no matter how you spin it. To no surprise, another article said the St. Louis and Kansas City areas were the only counties in the entire state where the majority voted NO. Go screw yourself, Obama!

Andy Griffith, the former TV Sheriff of Mayberry and guardian of small town America, is now the national spokesman for ObamaCare. More specifically, this venerable gentleman is the spokesman for the new Medicare. Apparently Griffith is under the naïve belief that ObamaCare is a genuinely good thing for seniors. As much as it pains me to say this, Griffith is dead wrong. ObamaCare is a fatal bargain for seniors, and all Americans.

Although media reports covering ObamaCare have centered mainly on the health insurance mandate and hidden tax increases, the real danger of ObamaCare lies in the official sanction of "mercy death" for America's seniors as a means of reducing federal medical outlays. No, ObamaCare doesn't say this outright. It simply limits hospital readmissions for those using Medicare, thereafter automatically committing said Medicare recipients to hospice facilities, called "community-based care." Consider the following from Section 3025:

IN GENERAL.-With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)(C)) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital....

ObamaCare defines "readmission" as

... the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

In essence, this ominous provision caps hospital visits, the reason being irrelevant. Government bureaucrats will now decide when patients have seen the doctor enough. Such a proposition is ludicrous, not to mention impossible to quantify.

Nevertheless, when patients reach their maximum number of readmissions, they are to be placed in the "community-based care transitions program," under the direct control of the Health Secretary:

IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall establish a Community-

Based Care Transitions Program under which the Secretary provides funding to eligible entities that furnish improved care transition services to high-risk Medicare beneficiaries...

HIGH-RISK MEDICARE BENEFICIARY.-The term ‘‘high-risk Medicare beneficiary'' means a Medicare beneficiary who has attained a minimum hierarchical condition category score, as determined by the Secretary, based on a diagnosis of multiple chronic conditions or other risk factors associated with a hospital readmission or substandard transition into post-hospitalization care, which may include 1 or more of the following:

(A) Cognitive impairment.

(B) Depression.

(C) A history of multiple readmissions.

(D) Any other chronic disease or risk factor as determined by the Secretary.

To clarify, the above provision gives the Health Secretary the discretion to remove life-extending treatment from the reach of seniors and place them in state wards for the purposes of making the "transition" to death as painless as possible. This "transition" can be activated for virtually any reason, including "a history of multiple readmissions" or "risk factor." Both of these qualifiers describe more than half the country, making this provision a transparent attempt by government to cut costs by forcibly cutting lives short.

The above provisions read like a page right out of science fiction. Movies like Soylent Green and Logan's Run have become the new reality. The popular chase scene where Logan flees state authorities, having reached the state-imposed age limit of thirty years, serves as a metaphor for present policy. Patients are told to "go home" and accept death instead of pursuing life-extending treatment. But should government decide when that is? If consulting the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, then the answer is yes:

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual's life due to the individual's age, disability, or terminal illness.

Furthermore, under Section 6301, ObamaCare permits the Health Secretary to disallow treatments or coverage that is not considered "reasonable or necessary." This determination will be made on the basis of reports produced by the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, scheduled to replace the current Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

When combined with the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), which will decide how to apply $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, a gloomy picture arises, whereby to count nickels and dimes, the federal government will engage in the wanton destruction of human life. Why is it that the only time government gets serious about the deficit is when it harms Americans?

IMAB will succeed in reducing Medicare outlays be promoting "prevention and wellness." In other words, don't get sick. The new Health Care Czar Donald Berwick also pledges to eliminate patient and doctor "choice" as an "engine of change." Additionally, Medicare will now only support "evidence-based" treatments under Section 3403 -- no government dollars for miracles. This is similar to Obama's pledge to rid the United States of "unproven" missile defense technology despite an 80-percent success rating.

Like the "transitions" program, cuts in basic treatments will translate into premature death for many Medicare recipients. But if the World Health Organization (WHO) is to be believed, this is a good thing, since death reduces medical "inequality." It is for this reason that the WHO ranks the U.K. 18th place, above the USA at 37th, in quality care. The British NHS has engaged in willful starvation of patients, has 20 percent more trauma deaths than the United States every year, and has 30,000 deaths due to medical mistakes annually. These mistakes range from patients receiving the wrong pair of lungs during a lung transplant to patients having the wrong testicle removed. At least the care is "equal," whatever that means.

The respected Canadian Fraser Institute estimates that in 2009, over 40,000 Canadians left Canada to receive non-emergency medical treatment, and another study by the Fraser Institute revealed that on average, Canadians would do better having coronary bypass surgery in the States, and not in Canada. And despite the fact that Canada is now spending 41 percent more per person than in 1993, waiting periods are still 73 percent longer than in 1993. Still want "equal" care?

Bottom line: Government should not be deciding where and when to end someone's life. And yet this is the inevitable result of government-funded medical care. At some point, government will cut corners to "save" money. Holland has made involuntary euthanasia near official practice[1]. Are we really going to pretend that if government could improve the budget by denying treatment, it wouldn't?

That is why market-based health care, although riddled with problems, must remain the standard in the practice of medicine. Individuals should make medical decisions and expend their resources in seeking whatever treatment they believe is necessary. If health care becomes a right instead of a privilege that improves with hard work and increased earning power, government will decide when to pull the plug. And that is not an America to which anyone should consent.

Today, Canadians familiar with America's new healthcare law are recognizing remarkable similarities between our healthcare future and their healthcare past. Obamacare adheres closely to the Canadian rubric for how to nationalize a formerly private healthcare system.

Republicans can stop this march back to the future if they win control of the House and Senate this fall, take the presidency in 2012, and commit to repealing Obamacare quickly and completely. Anything less will consign the United States to repeat Canada's 50-year journey toward socialized medicine.

To see how incremental reforms of the sort advanced by Obamacare can result in a full government takeover, it's instructive to consider the Canadian story. It begins in 1946, when Tommy Douglas, the socialist premier of Saskatchewan, secured legislative approval of government-funded hospital insurance for all residents of the province. The federal government followed suit in 1957, funding hospital insurance for the entire country.

Douglas led the way again in 1961, when Saskatchewan became the first province to fund full medical insurance for all its residents. In response, some 700 doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike for 23 days, charging that the Douglas plan opened the door to government control of health care. Several thousand citizens joined them, staging an orderly protest against the new "medicare" scheme outside the legislative building in the provincial capital.

The protests eventually died down, and by 1966, the Canadian government had passed legislation providing money to provinces that followed Saskatchewan's lead. Two years later, they all had.

Proponents of the reforms touted them as a happy medium between the British system, where the government owned and operated hospitals, and the American system, where healthcare services were largely left to the private market. Canada's federal government provided funding to the provinces, which the provinces used to deliver care.

This happy medium soon crumbled. With health care now effectively "free" -- that is, paid for by other taxpayers -- Canadians began visiting the doctor twice as much. Exploding demand drove up costs. To keep spending under control, the federal government simply reduced how much it sent to provinces to run the system. Provinces in turn cut payments to doctors and covered fewer services and cutting-edge treatments.

At first, doctors responded by billing patients directly for amounts greater than the government reimbursements. But in 1984, the federal government outlawed such practices -- thereby banning private delivery of services covered under the Canada Health Act. At this point, the Canadian government effectively controlled health care in the country.

The Canadian experience offers a preview of what Obamacare has in store for the United States.

Saskatchewan was the first province to ratchet up government control over the provision of health services -- much like Massachusetts. Just as Saskatchewan served as the model for Canada's healthcare system, the Massachusetts experiment was the template for Obamacare. And just as Saskatchewan's streets filled with protesters in the early-1960s, streets and city squares across America filled with tea partiers as the passage of Obamacare drew near.

The cornerstone of the Massachusetts plan -- and of Obamacare -- is the individual mandate, which requires all citizens to obtain health insurance. Defenders of the mandate claim that it's the best way to achieve universal coverage without an outright government takeover of the healthcare system. Massachusetts has been able to bring its uninsured rate from 10 percent to below 3 percent.

Of course, most of the Bay State's newly-insured citizens are enrolled in government-run and subsidized plans under Commonwealth Care -- at great cost to state taxpayers.

These plans don't fully cover the cost of their beneficiaries' medical care. Historically, doctors would have charged the privately insured more to make up for the shortfall. But Massachusetts' four largest insurers can't afford to pay providers any more, as they already hemorrhaged $150 million in the first quarter of this year. Ordinarily, they'd pass the increases onto consumers, but Bay State politicians forbade them from raising rates. One provider won on appeal and the others are awaiting decisions. But Governor Deval Patrick says he will appeal this ruling.

As they attempt to deal with this disaster, Massachusetts officials are quickly realizing what Canadian officials learned 30 years ago -- the only way to control costs inside a government-directed health system is to cut doctors' pay, transfer patients into managed care, and introduce arbitrary spending caps and price controls.

Not surprisingly, that's what Bay State leaders have tried to do. Last year, a state commission recommended that the government stop paying healthcare providers for each procedure and instead compensate provider networks with a flat fee per patient. Of course, such a system of global payments, or "capitation," encourages provider groups to skimp on care, as they get to keep any money not spent treating patients. State Senate president Therese Murray has decided to delay introducing legislation until 2011 because of the backlash.

Obamacare promises to expand coverage in the same way that Massachusetts did -- by expanding government-funded insurance. Canada did the same thing. Worse, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) - introduced on July 21 an amendment to the Affordable Care Act, backed by 128 lawmakers, to bring back the "public option" that failed to make it into the final health reform package.

To pay for all this new coverage, Obamacare introduces a number of new taxes on individuals and businesses. Once the Treasury has its hands on all that new revenue, it's unlikely that it will ever be able to let go. Those taxes will be here to stay.

And when costs spiral out of control -- as they have in Canada and in Massachusetts -- American officials will likely double-down on their bets and seize ever-greater control of the healthcare system. Canada banned the private delivery of medicine in response to runaway costs, while Massachusetts sees a system of global per-patient budgets as the solution to its cost problems. Federal officials will no doubt implement some combination of the two.

Fortunately, we're not yet consigned to a Canadian-style fate. According to Rasmussen Reports, nearly 60 percent of likely voters favor repealing the healthcare law. If Republicans take control of Congress this fall and the presidency in 2012, they'll be well-positioned to repeal Obamacare before the most egregious government controls kick in. If they don't, American health care in 2050 will bear a striking resemblance to Canadian health care in 1950.

Three years ago, Tommy Douglas - often dubbed Canada's "Father of Medicare" - was named the "Greatest Canadian" by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One can only hope that President Obama is never named the "Greatest American" for importing Canada's healthcare system to the United States.

I guess the lies that Obamacare would reduce costs and lower the deficit has finally caught up to them, huh?

Weekly Standard wrote:

Leaked White House Memo Advises Democrats on How to Spin ObamacareThe White House now explicitly recognizes repeal as a very real possibility. BY Jeffrey H. AndersonAugust 20, 2010 7:55 AM

Politico has released a piece that begins as follows: "Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit, and instead stressing a promise to 'improve it.'" This is a truly remarkable sentence. Legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost about $2.5 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) wouldn't do the one thing that Americans most want out of health-care legislation: cut health care costs. It wouldn't, despite the administration's repeated claims to the contrary, cut deficits. But, on the bright side, it can (allegedly) be improved. That's an amazingly tepid claim to make on behalf of something with Obamacare's price tag.

The truth is that Obamacare cannot be improved. It can only be repealed. It was passed as "comprehensive legislation," and it must be repealed comprehensively.

The vast majority of Americans recognize this. Rasmussen's latest survey of likely voters shows Americans favoring repeal by the overwhelming tally of 60 to 36 percent. This 24-point margin is Rasmussen's 2nd-highest in the 21 polls it has conducted in the five months since passage, despite, as Politico puts it, "the White House's all-out communications effort" in the interim – much of it at taxpayer expense.

Politico reports that White House allies' "confidential presentation" (it was leaked to Politico "by a source on the call" on which it was outlined) "concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes," including those under 40, "have not been won over by the plan." Indeed, Rasmussen's latest survey shows that voters in their 30s favor repeal by a 37-point margin (67 to 30 percent), while those voters in their 30s who feel "strongly" (either way) support repeal by the tally of 61 to 17 percent.

Perhaps most tellingly, Politico writes that the presentation's "final page of 'Don'ts' counsels against claiming 'the law will reduce costs and deficit.'" Instead, the presentation advises, "Keep claims small and credible"; "don’t overpromise or 'spin' what the law delivers." Thus, the administration’s central claim from the start – made ad nauseam by everyone from President Obama on down – that Obamacare would somehow reduce health care costs, is apparently just "spin." (This, of course, was recognized by a great many Americans all along.) And now, a $2.5 trillion law that's longer than War and Peace must, incredibly, be defended on the basis of claims that are "small and credible."

Highlighting the striking degree to which the administration is on the defensive five months after passage and two months before the midterms, the presentation says, "People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal." Enthusiastic or clear support is apparently no longer even on the table, and even White House allies now explicitly recognize repeal as a very real possibility.

Americans have rejected ObamaCare, so frustrated Democrats are bringing in the marketers to craft a simpler message.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats were promised repeatedly by their leadership and the "professional left" that once ObamaCare passed, the public would embrace it. Voters would even reward Democrats at the polls in November.

Former President Bill Clinton, for example, told audiences that the reason Democrats faired so poorly in the 1994 off-year elections, when Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, was his failure to pass ClintonCare.

However, no one claimed in 1994 that Democrats were beaten for failing to pass health care reform; everyone understood it was because they tried to pass a massive government-run takeover of the health care system. Had Democrats succeeded, as President Obama has now done, the beating would likely have been worse.

And that's what we're seeing in the polls. The Rasmussen poll has consistently shown that 55% to 60% of the public wants ObamaCare repealed, even as Team Obama tries to convince the public of its benefits--and of leaving Democrats in charge.

But with oblivion looming in the November elections, the White House and its allies have decided that the non-Ivy-League-educated rabble--i.e., the vast majority of Americans--is too stupid to understand how good ObamaCare is. So they've brought in the high-paid consultants to help with the messaging.

As Ben Smith of Politico reports, Families USA held a conference call featuring Lake Research Partners, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Herndon Alliance, which did some marketing tests on how to explain ObamaCare to Stupid.

"Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law works. One of the most powerful findings of this research is that a compelling personal story helps tremendously to make the health care reform law real, break down resistance, tap into anger about how things were under the old system, provide hope for how health care reform can make it better, and help voters retain knowledge of key provisions."

But some of the stories intended to "break down resistance" are just flat wrong.

In one illustration a 23-year-old woman has a 6-year-old child with asthma. The family had coverage through the husband's employer, but he lost his job. He got a new one but the new employer imposed a pre-existing condition exclusion and wouldn't cover the asthma. ObamaCare is supposed to stop that.

Except that for most people with employer-provided coverage that wouldn't happen. Federal legislation passed in 1996 says that if you have "credible coverage," which the large majority of employer-provided coverage is, the new employer's coverage cannot impose a pre-existing condition exclusion.

The report also says, "It is critical to reassure seniors Medicare will not be cut." Except Medicare will be cut--by more than $500 billion over 10 years. That's how Democrats helped pay for ObamaCare.

And then there's a list of "don'ts," such as don't "say the law will reduce costs and deficit." But that's exactly how Democrats sold the plan to the public, despite the fact that most economists and health policy experts warned that ObamaCare would force health care costs to explode.

ObamaCare is so unpopular not because the public is too stupid to understand it, but because millions of Americans understand the law better than many members of Congress.

We've already seen Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., lash out at companies that were taking a billion-dollar write down because of tax changes in retirees' drug benefits. The outraged Waxman demanded hearings until his staff explained to him that the companies were doing exactly what they needed to do under the law. He canceled the hearings.

And then there were four Democratic senators who sent a letter to the head of the IRS in July complaining, "Not only will a 1099 form be necessary for millions of new transactions, the stricter requirements force business owners to collect taxpayer identification information from vendors, contractors, and other companies." Yes, senators, and you voted for it, so it's a little late to complain.

By contrast, we've seen the remarkable phenomenon of Americans actually trying to read the 2,700-page health care monstrosity--which I suspect is more than the majority of the members of Congress have done.

And the voters have been trying to get answers from their elected representatives--when they could find them--about specific provisions in the bill.

ObamaCare has been one of the most widely discussed and debated pieces of legislation in our lifetimes. The public has a pretty good idea about what's in the bill, and they don't like it.

Yes, ObamaCare needs to be explained to Stupid--and I suggest they start with the Democrats who voted for it.

With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has “a lot of reeducation to do” heading into the midterms.

While some surveys – namely the Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking poll – have suggested an uptick in support for the reforms, most other surveys continue to show a steady level of opposition to the new law that remains higher than the favorable opinions of it.

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.

With several vulnerable House Democrats touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.

“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

The administration is particularly concerned about the views of senior citizens – who “have been a target of a lot of the misinformation,” according to the health secretary.

As of Monday, one million seniors have received $250 rebate checks to help them fill the “donut hole” in Medicare’s prescription drug coverage. Sebelius says by the end of the year, as many as four million Part D participants may get checks.

“Once people understand that [the rebate checks are] just one of the new features for Medicare beneficiaries, they become increasingly more enthusiastic,” Sebelius told ABC News.

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll, taken in July, 50 percent of Americans disapproved of the president’s handling of health care, with 45 percent saying they approved. The level of disapproval was stronger than approval of the Obama administration’s actions.

But the latest Kaiser poll – also taken in July – shows 50 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of the health care reform law, with 35 percent holding an unfavorable view. Support in the Kaiser poll was up four points from the organization’s April tracking poll, with opposition down five points.

However, among those 65 years and older, 43 percent said in July that Medicare would be “worse off” under the reforms, compared to 25 percent who said the program would be “better off.”

Sebelius says she understands the concerns of American seniors.

“They’re worried about what happens to their benefits in the future, worried about what happens to the overall stability of Medicare.”

The secretary says she “strongly” disagrees with what her immediate predecessor, former Health and Human Services secretary Mike Leavitt, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last week suggesting the changes to Medicare in the health care law merely create the “illusion” of reform.

“It does not ease cost pressures but papers over them with unsustainable price controls,” Leavitt wrote.

Sebelius argues the reforms “strengthen” Medicare, extending its solvency by 12 years through 2029.

“My view is actually supported by independent actuaries, by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office,” Sebelius said.

I'm sorry, but isn't reeducation a former Communist Soviet Union term? Was this a freudian slip or an accurate description of Sebelius' worldview? If it's the latter, things are looking scarier by the moment. Reeducate this bitch!

_________________

August 31st, 2010, 2:20 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Universal Health Care

Yes they would come in and send you to "political re-education camps" generally located in Siberia, and it was an all expense paid trip, you didn't even need to pack. Your food was provided for you, if you could call it that, and your clothing (concentration camp pajamas) were given to you. The work was back breaking, life killing, and you would be re-educated if and when the pain was great enough that you swore allegiance to the new regime. But generally it didn't matter, they just wanted you out of society anyway, so you couldn't polute the rest. The young were re-educated by seeing the old never return!

Sniff, Sniff, ahh the smell of communism! Dirty red *$%^@#ds.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Vladimir Lenin

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. Vladimir Lenin

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. Vladimir Lenin

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. Vladimir Lenin

The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses. Vladimir Lenin

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. Vladimir Lenin

Only by abolishing private property in land and building cheap and hygienic dwellings can the housing problem be solved.

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept communism outright. But we'll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." Nikita Kruschev

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."